Cyberdemocracy And The Public Sphere 95
Any discussion of the revitalization of democracy, especially via cyber-democracy, starts with the public sphere -- the crossroads where citizens gather to discuss and conduct civic affairs. In America's earlier days, the public sphere was the New England town hall, the village church, tavern, union hall, park or street corner.
Those places still exist, but they no longer serve as centers for political discussion. Political scientists have argued for years that the media -- especially TV -- have replaced those spaces as the country's new public sphere. Until the l980's, that made sense; the vast majority of Americans received their political information via one of the three commercial TV newscasts -- ABC, CBS or NBC. Now only a fraction of Americans (recent Pew Center for Media Research surveys suggest about 18%) watch network newscasts regularly. Few younger people watch them at all.
My belief: As it grows, the Net is already replacing conventional media as our new public sphere, the new national gathering place. Roughly half the country's population is now wired, according to the most recent data, and computing is becoming more readily available in offices, factories, homes, libraries and schools. A number of companies -- Ford, Delta, Intel -- have begun offering computing equipment and free Net access to workers. And the price of computing is eventually expected to drop.
Cyberdemocracy could, theoretically, re-democratize politics and media, giving each citizen the opportunity to research, talk, speak and vote online from his home or office. The Net has already undermined a number of taboos and institutions, from restrictions on sexual discussions to investing. In fact, it seems inevitable politics will be transformed. At that point, our notion of civic discourse will change completely. So, perhaps will such outmoded ideas as having only two significant political parties, or considering all issues from the journalistic and political vantage of a "left" or a "right." The corporatization both of mainstream media and national politics could also come under challenge in so individualized a medium.
Much of the little civic discussion we've heard about the political impact of the Net has focused on crime (thwarting theft or online predators), security (encryption), the rotting of young brains, intellectual property and commerce along with the usual predictions of impending chaos.
Such issues are too narrow, suggests Mark Poster, who teaches at UCLA/Irvine. His essay, "Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere," appears in one of the best collections of techno-writing -- "Internet Culture", published several years ago, edited by David Porter and published by Routledge Press.
Though the Net works with and extends existing social functions, Poster writes, "What are far more cogent as possible long-term political effects of the Internet are the ways in which it institutes new social functions," don't mesh easily with contemporary organizations and institutions.
Existing politics and ideologies appear restrictive and antideluvian, especially in the face of cyberspace, which breeds diverse points of view, individual expression, and the kind of free flow of ideas almost nonexistent in Washington's Media/Politics machine. Political theorists and cyber-scholars argued a decade ago that traditional political authority and conventional two-party politics couldn't withstand so much individualistic thinking and grassroots participation. It's still not completely clear whether that's so.
But if the ongoing presidential campaign provides any indication, that day may be drawing closer. The approximately 78 million Americans aged 21 and younger now account for 28% of the population. What TV was to Boomers, computers are to their kids. This striking new reality appears largely lost on the candidates, their parties and the media that cover them. Politicians prattle on about Net obsession and and violence-inducing pop culture, while that culture has never been richer and violence among kids has plummeted in recent years.
So far this fall, months of campaigning and tens of millions of dollars in marketing, research and advertising has yet to produce an original or significant idea, let alone a rational solution to any political issues. Poster writes that the terms "left" and "right", which form the boundaries of the co-produced nightmare Americans call politics don't derive from ideology, but from the seating arrangements of legislators during the French Revolution.
Will the Net change any of this? Maybe. The Net disrupts many basic assumptions about politics. The Net is a vast de-centralized communications system. As a historian, Poster says he finds nothing about the Net more fascinating than its emergence from a collection of cultural communities that had little in common: The Cold War-era Defense Department, which promoted decentralized communications to survive a nuclear attack; "the counter-cultural ethos" of computer programmers and engineers, with its aversion to censorship; and "the world of university research, which I am at a loss to characterize."
Poster might have connected the Net to the early "tavern" model of civics. Both involved small communities coming together; both were fractious, even hostile in their style of discourse. He might also have added several other founding streaks; cyber-gurus and hippies, spin-offs of the demoralized 60's idealists who saw their revolution fading after the end of the Vietnam war, and the heady moral glow of the civil rights era, and who fantasized about utopian and electric communities. And most importantly, the hackers, perhaps the most political of all, who adopted the then-profoundly radical idea that information want and ought to be free. It turned out to be one of the truly revolutionary social impulses, and one that's proving true.
But although the Net's political implications of the Net are potentially enormous, we don't even have a social context in which to think about them. "The only way to define the technological effects of the Internet," Poster writes, "is to build the Internet, to set in place a series of relations which constitute an electronic geography. Put differently, the Internet is more like a social space than a thing..." That's why it's real implications are passed over in political discussions in favor of exploitive issues like moral values and child safety.
But as Poster points out, the issue at the heart of any discussion of a re-democratization of democracy is civics. Questions of "talk," of meeting face-to-face, of "public" discourse get confused and complicated. If "public" discourse exists as pixels on screens generated at remote locations by individuals one has never met and probably never will, then how will public communications be distinguished from private and personal ones? This isn't, of course, unique to the Net.
If the Net becomes the new public sphere, then everyone with technology will have new opportunities to participate -- but not in the personal, way that once characterized politics. This may not prove as big a chance as it appears. Once the town meeting gave way to the TV network, politics had already become impersonal and elitist. TV raised some of the same issues, sans interactivity and linkage.
For some time, national politics have been a co-production of Washington politicians and lobbyists and Washington journalists. The public has been relegated, reduced to anonymous polling figures and truncated sound bites. In recent years, a third party -- corporations, now the primary funders of politics -- have entered the equation, further diminishing the public's role and its interest in the process. As media has also become corporatized, conventional politics seems almost to have cleaved away from much of the populace, an incestuous ritual that seems closed off to most of us, even though we still have the right to vote.
The Net can only increase citizen interest and participation in politics, as Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura's successful online gubernatorial candidacy demonstrated. Online politics is inclusive, participatory, interactive and convenient. Political Web sites teem with discussion and commentary. It would be simpler to register and vote from a home or office computer than in the conventional way, especially if cyberspace becomes the public sphere. If it's a less personal style of politics that existed a couple of hundred years ago, it may be more inclusive and interactive than the current process.
The Net is much closer to the original model of the civic sphere --the tavern/union hall cohort -- than political scientists might think. Weblogs like camworld, myvideogames.com and kro5shin.or are the digital equivalent of taverns, are sites from chickclicker.com to advogato.org, everything2.com, even my.marijuana.com. CNN and Usatoday.com might be the equivalent of the town hall, Slashdot a busy village watering hole where people come to trade information and brawl. Slate, Salon and Inside.com are the rarified, genteel taverns of the Old Guard. People are often raucous, discussion chaotic, but those are signs of interest and vitality as well as trouble and dissonance. And the new taverns are hyper-linked to one another, a completely new reality.
The "magic" of the Internet is that it is puts "cultural acts, symbolizations in all forms, in the hands of all participants; it radically decentralizes the positions of speech, publishing, film-making, radio and television broadcasting..."
One change likely to arise from cyber-democracy is that the nature of authority will change. The Net discourages endowing individuals with inflated status. Just look at scholarly research, being challenged and reformed by the dissemination of texts via the Net. Political authority, Poster argues, will be reformed in much the same way. This argument is a bit problematic. Corporations are a lot more powerful and politically effective than academics. They manipulate politics and the law all the time, as the Microsoft experience and the free music wars have amply demonstrated.
Cyber-democracy is as good a term for that process as any. Day by day, the Net is becoming the primary, increasingly universal public sphere in the United States, and will likely be for much of the rest of the world. Given the relentless decentralization of the Net, the moral and political authority of Washington-style politics and conventional media may be replaced by a more informal, rational, accountable system. No utopia, and the cybersphere will raise as many problems and challenges as it resolves. But week by week, the Jurassic-era Bush-Gore-Nader/media proceedings may be among the the last of their kind. Good riddance.
of course..the US isn't a democracy (Score:1)
The Netherlands (Score:1)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Mark Poster's article online (Score:2)
IRC Meetings (Score:1)
The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:3)
I think it's inevitable that politic groups will splinter into thousands of smaller groups, though I don't know if this is good or not. It may be okay for a smaller country like France, Italy or the UK to have lots of small political parties that govern by coalition, and can fall overnight with a call for new elections, but that might be hazardous for America and world security.
The world looks to America for stability, and the world likes knowing that whatever president we elect will be for a strong military, pro-corporate democracy and the mass media. The world likes knowing an American president will stay in power for 4 years, ome hell or highwater.
If America starts acting like one of those second rate NATO countries that change government monthly, there might be less security and more unrest in the world, and that would be bad.
Thanks,
Slashdot as a Sphere (Score:1)
Little doubt that this is a source of information for many, but the question stands, is it a source of influence?
More info.... (Score:1)
He's an asshole who thinks cyber democracy is meaningful. YOu people should get off your asses and out from in front of your computers for a little while.
--
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:1)
Re:of course..the US isn't a democracy (Score:1)
Proof of thesis: Slashdot.
Evidence: can we EVER agree on anything ?? And if WE can't, then how can you expect %nation% to do so.
Sorry, but the only way to run a democratic society, at least as far as I'm aware, is as a republic. Any other way ends up as mob rule. . .and a a member of the Geek minority, I can assure you that mob rule would NOT be favorable to Geeks. . .
How pratically is cyberdemocracy? (Score:1)
You quoted Mark Poster's essay "Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere", Is your
article opinions formulated upon reading his essay? I will like to know so that I can read
the essay and seperate his thoughts from yours. Anyway, like you said, "Cyberdemorcracy
could, theoretically,
Pratically will anything change? Take a look at slashdot for instance, when there is
something that requires an action such as going out in the real world, contacting a senator,
How many of us actually take the effort in engaging in such actions? You also mentioned
that the nature of authority will change. but how will it change? I have only seen it
get worst, as authority tries to gain more control. I hope for the best tho, and will do
my part.
And where does the term "public sphere" originate (Score:2)
Goodness gracious (Score:3)
The Town Hall/Church Forum is not dead... (Score:2)
I think just about every church in this nation is trying to come up with ideas at attracting the younger generations. The problem we have, obviously, is the secular media influence (which says church is not "cool") and the fact attention spans have diminished on an exponential basis over the past couple decades. Many churches are taking the wrong steps to attract our youths. By trying to sacrifice Spripture for Rock & Roll or loud visual displays. I do not think this is the way to do it. Instead, pastors should refocus on going OUT into the community, such as we have.
To be honest, I have Saved countless more souls OUTSIDE of the Church than inside!
Content Discrimination vs Web Fandom (Score:1)
But Republicrats have a self-perpetuating method of limiting choice. When ISP's can veto websites based on commercial favoritism [wired.com]... and when Cable companies can unfairly exclude [wbqc.com] local television channels at their monopolistic whim... we need more freedom of choice!
In the words of Jesse "the Gov'ner" Ventura, "What good is it to have just one more choice than Russia?"
Vote Third Party. Vote Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke [votenader.org].
Look @ importance priority: Letter,phone,fax,email (Score:1)
Dead last.
The power structure doesn't want to accept the net. Why should we expect to see a change?
Re:IRC Meetings (Score:1)
Still Too Early to Tell (Score:1)
I believe something similar to what Mr Katz suggests will happen in the next 15 years. I don't believe it will be the current Internet that does it, though.
----------------------
Re:More info.... (Score:1)
Before I go full scale into a rant, I'll stop myself. However, I can't help but think of the old SNL sketch with William Shatner at a Star Trek conference, where he screams at his fans...
You, I bet you still live with your Mother, and you, have you ever even kissed a girl?!?!
It's a kind of brilliant naivete that was cute when you were in High School, but that seems so pathetic afterward. Moderate me down, whatever. The idea is good: get away from your computer/cell phone/TV/VCR/DVD and do something else, just for a little while.
My apologies to those that this doesn't apply to. I imagine (hope?) it's a majority of people.
Is it just me or is Katz gitting better? (Score:1)
To be serious, you have some good points but how are you going to make shure that not just the middle class and the upper class will not be the only ones represented?
Sanchi
Forced Compliance (Score:1)
Bush could deny that he wants to hook the rich up with the best tax cuts and then Gore could point to Bush's budget plans online and show the world where the numbers are not fuzy but actually exist in Bush's plans.
Michael
http://www.buymeasportscar.com [buymeasportsar.com]
News from the 'net (Score:2)
Check to make sure it's a valid source and not just some propaganda bullshit. Unfortunately, the net makes it very easy to spread untrue information just as easy as it is to promote validated facts.
Sure, there is freedom of speech, but don't believe everything you read on the internet, what may look like valid news may actually be nothing but rumour mongerers spreading their bullshit.
For an example, check out The Drudge Report [drudgereport.com]. Facts or rumours? Make sure you know who you're getting your news from.
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:2)
You can, but no one cares to. Politics thrives on argument and dissention. There are even people who wander from message board to message board on the web, trying to stir up completely meaningly controversy -- and people love it! Sites like slashdot are not popular because people are interested in meeting like-minded individuals and thoughtfully discuss the world's problems. No, they are popular because people have an inborn desire to beat other opinions down.
That is the essence of politics. That is the essence of trolling.
If America starts acting like one of those second rate NATO countries that change government monthly, there might be less security and more unrest in the world, and that would be bad. No disagreement there. I'm sick of hearing how superior the European system is, on every subject from dentistry to particle physics. It's no accident that we build Fords, while they drive Fiats and Yugos.
E-Government in the Britain (Score:3)
This kind of venture is a fantastic way of giving power back to the people. A forum for every voting person, and one in which it'll be easy to track which politician is doing what, is supposedly just around the corner. Maybe it'll fail hopelessly. I sincerely hope it works.
The official web site of the 'Office of the E-Envoy' (E-Government) is at http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/egov_index.ht m [e-envoy.gov.uk].
Re:Slashdot as a Sphere (Score:1)
Slashdot sph ere [slashdot.org]
Presidential Debate (Score:1)
Re:Still Too Early to Tell (Score:1)
Kids who are fourteen years old right now will be eligible to vote in the 2004 election. Their generation has never know a time when there was no Web. To them, surfing the Net is as normal as having a phone conversation - maybe more. They will be the driving force in the next political shift.
--
Do you know of what you speak? (Score:1)
And where is the connection between the size of country and optimum number of political parties?
I'm not flaming, or whatever, I'm just interested in hearing some justification for all of that.
Re:of course..the US isn't a democracy (Score:1)
not that that is the case...I think it would be very cool to have large town meetings over the internet. (not saying that we should be a democracy) but it would be really neat to directly talk with the president or someone else on issues. It would be neat to have them on IRC or on
there are several things in our country that are done very democratically though. FOr instance, anyone can make their own law..you go down to the courthouse, get the paper, and get the required number of signatures, and submit it. you can also make state laws....and the people are the only people who decide whether an amendmant gets passed or not. I think it is called a referendum. The entire congress could pass an amendmant, but the people decide whether we use it or not. I think that there is still hope for the US, and politics could/should embrace the internet and public forums more than they embrace polls and such.
A Rule of Thumb For Katz (Score:2)
I really wonder sometimes. Doesn't he ever want to be anything more than a hack? He may pull the wool over many slashdot kiddies eyes, but it must ring hollow, for both himself and the slashdot editors. Why can't slashdot just bite the bullet and admit that Katz is nothing but a cheap money making ploy? I can't speak for the powers that be at slashdot, but if I were them I'd want to do something that makes a positive contribution to this world, even if it is a little less profitable. Selling brain candy is not productive. Entertaning? Perhaps, but the popular media that slashdot loves to criticize does the same thing. Of course, if it's popular it must be a good thing, right?
awarness isn't democracy (Score:4)
Television brought the same thing. By having a direct connection to the news in the form of a person speaking to you with the white house in the background, you felt like you were a part of it. You could then talk about it with other people, and feel assured that you were on top of things. After time, we began to feel that it's our right to know, and it is, but it's really a right to find out. Granted, if you want to live a normal life, and have a job and a family, you don't have time to go crusading around, and digging up everything that you feel is relevant about politics today, so that's where the news comes in.
The net can be even worse, in that the sheer volume of information is staggering. But how many use the net to really exercise their democratic rights. Reading headlines and blurbs doesn't cut it. Our perceived right to information is filled if we log on to our news site every morning, and read about what john doe senator said about x situation. That's great. Ten days later, some other headline dominates our mind, just as it dominates the paper, or news channel or web site.
The net isn't going to revitalize our feelings of democracy, or incite us to become involved. It's natural progression of mediums. In the electronic age, or whatever this time period is going to be called, the net replaced the television. But people can still read good newspapers and be just as informed. I think that the people that read about news, but never actually wrote a letter to their representative, will still read the news online, and still not do anything.
The average american views the net as a tool anyway; a fancy newspaper if you will. By clicking on things, we can believe that we're getting the information that we want, not the information that's being given to us. As such, it doesn't really draw us into politics. I don't think the net is going to instill social conscience; it's just a new way to fill the void of inactivity, and this is from someone that loves computers and the internet.
Cyber Lobby (Score:1)
The notion that a free for all cyberdemocracy would be much different is crazy. Our founding fathers warned of the tyranny of the masses and a cyber democracy could prove to be just that.
Fanatic individuals have the ability to yell louder than the next man making their voices more powerful in the political realm. IE The right to lifers only represent a minority of republicans yet a candidate can not be nominated without being pro-life!.
The shift to Cyber-Democracy would only make these lobbies go Cyber as well. Lobby Spam could sway many politicians and recruit fellow zealots the same as today.
What is lacking in politics is the ability to create equal time and exposure to political ideas. In order to do that, large funded campaigns would have to be limited to the amount of exposure they recieve on the web to equate with smaller poorly funded 'Grass Roots' movements.
But this would mean that we are back to square one because a committe would have to approve which candidates or issues are viable limmiting the masses to the same A,B(maybe c and d too) vote.
The only solution to fair government is a Super Cyborg designed to govern compassionatly and without bias!
Re:News from the 'net (Score:2)
Don't you see? By postulating what you want us to believe, you exclude our capacity for believing it, because it itself belongs to the class of memes that you're criticizing: slashdot is no less "some place you hear stuff on the web" than the Drudge report.
Best use of Web for Democracy (Score:2)
IMHO the true value of the Internet and Web is for research. I can access candidates pages, League of Women voters on proposals, and visit sites (like Vote Smart [vote-smart.org]) which reveal the true voting records of incumbants.
--
Re:Do you know of what you speak? (Score:1)
And going on the Marshall plan, it was mostly American companies (the grandpappy of one G.W Bush) financing the Nazis, so I suppose that it's only morally right that you try and clean up the mess.
Bush-Nazi connection [disinfo.com]
The problem with this (Score:1)
It's like... a virtual Clinton! (gasp!)
--
The beeb and the Christian Science Monitor (Score:1)
The Wall Street Journal is written for the moneyed class who control America, so it's important that they get accurate information. It tells the truth, though from a definitely pro capitalistic viewpoint.
I hear the Christian Science Monitor is real good, though I don't read it.
The BBC has always had a good reputation as a news source, they may even publish the Dubya abortion story. The British journalists have almost always taken the higher road wrt reporting, and rarely tarnish their reporting with the tits and ass common in American media.
Slashdot and the Public Spehere (Score:1)
The model of the public sphere was developed by the German Philosopher Jurgen Habermas. It defines strict conditions under which a given forum can be viewed as a Public Sphere. Of possible interest, and relevance to Jon Katz's piece, is that I critique Poster's analysis of the internet (albeit a different essay, The Net as a Public Sphere), arguing that some of what Poster sees as flaws actually enhance the public sphere role of the internet.
Andrew
Wha-at, Bush is a Krupp? (Score:1)
Try reading some William Shirer instead of the web. Heck, anyone can put up a web page, even Matt Drudge.
Online Politics Will Look Like America Does (Score:1)
The web's early adopters were affluent white males with mostly libertarian leanings, and they are over represented online.
The web will become just as centrist as the rest of America...
--
DigitalContent PAC [weblogs.com]
You missed the point ms. Marie. (Score:1)
The posts on this website, on the other hand, should not be used a sole source of information.
You misinterpreted the original poster. I took it as meaning that all websites are not created equal. Take a look at the Christian Coalition Website for example, that stuff is not trustworthy "news", but rather religious psycho-babble passed off as "news" and "facts", when it is actually coming from a biased point of view.
Come on, you can't actually believe that you trust the Drudge Report for news, do you? He's gotten slapped with so many lawsuits for posting incorrect information as "news", that it's sickening. He is a threat to journalism, posting anything on a whim as "news", whereas slashdot atleast links to news sites.
I certainly hope you don't mistake the posts on this websites as "news".
Re:Goodness gracious (Score:2)
That's my opinion in a nutshell too :-) I wish he'd write less often but better.
Re:Look @ importance priority: Letter,phone,fax,em (Score:1)
You won't see a change today. Probably not tomorrow either. Change is slow in politics.
Politicians will learn to respect electronic forms of communication, espically after we vote for the ones that respond better. I'm talking about a local elections. We don't elect the president, but we elect the people that elect the president. It's up to us to pay attention and make informed votes.
Re:The Town Hall/Church Forum is not dead... (Score:1)
Re:The beeb and the Christian Science Monitor (Score:1)
Anyone can write a book as well.... (Score:1)
Re:Voting Online??? I think *not*! (Score:1)
Carnivore logs all access to it and that will be put in the court records.
And who brings the records to the court?Well?!?!?! thats the FBI isn't it?
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:2)
Anyways, this has nothing to do with "American stability." America's government was fundamentally stable throughout. The actions taken during that time are largely extraneous to the question of American stability.
Sure whatever. I'd rather live in this static republic than the highly volatile governments of most of Europe's democracies. Universal healthcare and such may sound like a dream at first glance, but when you start looking at what it is in actuality, and what it actually costs, it's less than absolutely desirable. When you examine the amount of damage these various coalition goverments have imposed, I suspect even you would reconsider.
This is the third act... (Score:1)
The first act was The Last Days of Politics [slashdot.org] where he performed his exposition, telling us things were in transition and times would be a'chaingin'.
The second act is usually more depressed as our hero (democracy) goes through the wringer at the hands of the villian (corps). It consisted of Should You Voce? [slashdot.org] and Messages From Democracy's Ghosts [slashdot.org].
Finally we have the third act where we discover if this little play is a tragedy or if there's any hope whatsoever. Will our hero triumph? Read Cyberdemocracy And The Public Sphere [slashdot.org] and find out!
Town meeting lives on! (Score:3)
I don't know how Katz did his research.
Change isn't just possible... It's necessary (Score:2)
Never mind the environmental problems, such as global warming -- now that half the north pole is going people are starting to realize that it's no joke. What about the "environmental crisis" that the mass media perpetuated on our culture? Teachers can't educate kids in schools because they're burnt out on TV. Most of us are going to die in a nursing home because family structures have been destroyed by college educations and corporate jobs that move us around the country and the world, and the television set that raises children instead of their parents.
We got into this mess because the decision makers in our society make decisions for their own personal good, not the public good. We can only get out if the people take power back. Because we're on the edge of an economic and ecological crisis which is only going to get worse if we do nothing, I think "the establishment" will find itself in a weak position and will have to let us win.
Needless to say, a lot of activists are getting involved these days, both in things like the protests that have happened in Seattle, Philadelpha, LA, Boston and Saint Louis, but also in more "square" things like the Nader campaign. If you'd like there to still be a planet to live on, you should get involved too.
Yet again (Score:2)
I have two counterpoints to make:
1. Nothing on the net is new. SSDM (Same Shit, Different Media)
2. Use of the prefix "Cyber" in front of any English word should not get past the Slash lameness filter. Katz has been writing in this forum long enough that he ought to know how ignorant he sounds when trying to coin a term like "Cyber-democracy". Yuck!
Government should change slowly (Score:1)
To steal a page from Kurtzweil (sp?), it's a Really Good Thing that government doesn't change with the speed of fashion or business. We may call it "Gridlock" or whatever, but it's slow moving by design.
Imagine if laws could change with the speed of opinions (or popularity) on /. Eek.
-C
Re:Presidential Debate (Score:1)
That's a lame comment. Here's a little more intelligent take on the Gore/Internet thing than the bash-Gore spin that's playing so much more these days:
True, Mr. Gore didn't invent the Internet - but then, he never said he had. What he did say was, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That was a deeply unfortunate sentence - but what makes it so unfortunate is that now it is impossible for Mr. Gore to get the credit he actually deserves. Declan McCullagh, the Wired writer who first played up Mr. Gore's remark, puts it this way: the vice president "was one of the first politicians to realize that those bearded, bespectacled researchers were busy crafting something that could, just maybe, become pretty important." [nytimes.com]
Gore probably did more than you and Bush combined towards getting the internet as widespread today as it is.
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:1)
> drive Fiats and Yugos.
Oh, so brilliant, so unbiased, so smart. Now, I can play that silly game too: Is it accident that they build Mercedes (you know, these folks who purchased Chrysler not so long ago), Ferraris, Rolls-Royce, BMWs, while you build Dodges? Is it accident that Opel (GM European branch) and Ford Europe are falling behind Volkswagen, Peugeot and Renault? Is it accident that the same scenario is also taking place in South America?
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:1)
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:1)
This is apology for atrocity, not a testament to American stability. The REASON you've got it so fine is BECAUSE of those "mistakes" made in the Cold War. I suppose you believe that dropping the Bomb on Japan was justified, too.
All of which puts the lie into Katz's view of the Internet as savior. Yes, people talk here, but they act and think as they always did.
Excuse me, I need to go to the coffee machine.....
Re:The Town Hall/Church Forum is not dead... (Score:2)
While I do dislike politicans who use religion as the basis of their platform, I have no problem with a minister/preacher/rabbi/shaman/sheik whatever expressing their political views to his congregation. That right remains his/her right of Free Speech, and as such, although we may disagree with the platform that he is speaking from, we cannot argue that he DOES have the right to speak.
Also, on that same note, it is interesting to note that some of the first gatherings of revolutionary-minded people in the late 1700's were based in/on the preachings of revolutionary deacons, who used their position in front of a large number of people to spread the furvor of anti-British sentiment.
Now, as for every politican mentioning god. What do professional politicans do best? They pander to speical interest groups and large numbers of people with relatively the same beliefs. While you and i and many others may not believe in the religious that said politican is espousing, the fact is that much of America does. Not only that, but if they hold those religious views, it is again their right to state them, as long as they dont force them upon other people.
A better question to ask is to what extent do we let government control the influence of religion? At what point does religion stop being free speech?
-syrupMatt
"Moving through the masses like a fish through water."
Jesse the Gov (Score:2)
Rather, I think it has everything to do with average folks feeling disenfranchised and finally taking an iterest because there was actually a choice.
Maybe the Net will help this along. Maybe there will spring up a spirit of community that will bring some real choices to the polls...
But I think that the true root cause of change will have more to do with the serious lack of choices and less to do with whether or not you are jacked in.
As always, I could be wrong.
Re:A Rule of Thumb For Katz (Score:1)
"Most things in this world are the way they are for a reason."
Probably the stupidest thing uttered and followed up by an even more hollow point. Do you really think that the introduction of radio and TV didn't suddenly change things? Then your head is still firmly planted in your ass. Rare, yes, but even the term "rare" means it happens at least once and maybe more. And Katz doesn't even claim that there is one bad guy. I distinctly saw a few bad guys mentioned. So please, go take your "everyone on slashdot is a sheep/Katz is useless" trolls and save them for the Drudge report.
Towne Meetings... (Score:1)
What is slashdot, except a never-ending, online meeting of the geek community? Now, I know that it is not totally representative, but in concept, that's what it is. I can see a time when there are huge meetings like this one for certain interest groups, as well as smaller ones for geographical locations, and maybe even physical communities.
Online communities represent a new media that simply can't be bought out by any corporations. I think this is an amazing idea, and will change lots of things. I'm excited to be alive in this time, and witness to these changes.
Joshua
People don't use the 'net for political news (Score:2)
I read ;on the BBC [bbc.co.uk] a few weeks ago that 50% of the US voters base their opinions on Saturday Night Live and other similar "political" shows, and it jumps up to 80% for the under 30s. Yes, they seem to be deserting the traditional news sources, but don't assume they are flocking to rational debate on the web.
Re:Government should change slowly (Score:1)
Governments of past weren't slow by design, they were slow by neccessity. You couldn't exactly gauge public opinion when it might have taken two months to determine what the popular majority is (assuming of course, that we are talking about a democracy).
However, now, we have the chance to put government back where it belongs, in the hands of the people. A fast moving govenment that conforms to the will of the people, while still acting in best interests of them, would be an unprecedented feat in human history. Of course, there would be mistakes. And there would always be the "fad factor". However, the answer isn't for government to move slowly and surely. The answer is for them to move FAST and surely, and not be afraid to make mistakes on the way.
I would rather a government i could help to change and mold as needed, mistakes and pathfalls all, rather than continue to deal with the slow moving weight of an archaic political system. Does it really make any sense in the most advanced time in history to be using a system of government (the democratic republic) that was deemed flawed almost 2000 years ago?
-syrupMatt
"Moving through the masses like a fish through water."
"Ventura's on-line campaign" (Score:2)
Here's my experience:
First hearing Jesse Ventura is running.. and thinking "Oh, brother, an ex-pro wrestlier? Nutcase. Next."
But then I started hearing radio interviews with the candidates.. and one was making a lot of sense. It was only at the very end that I found out the sensible one was named Ventura. He also did soemthing else amazing. When someone asked him about something he didn't know about, he came right out and said he didn't know know about it. No bluffing, no BS, just a very honest answer. The press was stunned into silence for a moment.
He made few campaign promises, and wouldn't let the press badger him into making more. It was fun to hear him ask a reporter what part of "no" he didn;t understand. Jesse explained that he only made promises he knew he could keep.
And then I heard a debate. Both the Republican and the Democratic tended to respond with "You're right, Jesse, but..." and then went at each other. Jesse didn't step in. There was the issue of public funding for a new Twins stadium. The Republican wanted to fund it one way. The Democrat wanted to fund it another way. Jesse suggested that maybe they could "..build there own damn stadium." And right there I stopped wondering if I should I vote for him.
By election day the polls showed each with roughly 30-33%, taking into account the margin of error. It was a real three-way race. And then the only polls that really matter opened... and it wasn't so close any more.
The Big Two parties took away one lesson from this: Don't let a third candidate into your debates. They did NOT learn the lesson the voters wanted them to learn, which is that we want someone who is honest (love him, hate him, think he's an idiot, you never doubt where Jesse stands - he tells you and doesn't give a damn if that bothers anyone), who understands that the government's role should be to get out of the way. (One major party says they want to get government out of my wallet. The other major party says they want to get out of my bedroom. I want government the hell out of both places.)
I have net access almost every waking hour. I didn't visit his web site until very late in the campaign, if at all before the election. But Jesse got out. He went to the small towns. He got on the local cable shows. He got on public radio. He got the word out, himself, the "old fashioned" ways. Maybe the net helped, but it was far from the only thing.
rise of Nazi's in pre-WW2 Germany (Score:1)
Oversoul
Re:Cyber Lobby (Score:1)
What is worse is that politicans have learned to exploit this for their own advantage. Know the term "buried in committee", and such nonesene to placate a special interest group by forming a study, and then using the old "these things take time" excuse.
Frankly, change should not take time. We are in an era of unprecendented prosperity and change for the better (even though sometimes it seems like the complete opposite). "Cyber-democracy", or whatever catch phrase you want to attach to that notion, is quite simply the best way to save our governemt from becoming even more of a stagnated cesspool of self-serving nonesense.
Yes, the person with the loudest voice is always heard first (i like your analogy with the pro-life/republicans). However, on the Net, there is no "heard first". There are so many places of information sharing and distribution, that it almost seems infeasable for one special interest group to completly obliterate any voice from dissenters. Even the weight of mega tech corporations cannot silence the voices of dissention on the net (the success of slashdot and the effors of 2600 is perfect evidence of that).
-syrupMatt
"Moving through the masses like a fish through water."
Re:The Dubya abortion story (Score:1)
Re:A Rule of Thumb For Katz (Score:2)
Thanks for reminding me that introduction of better navigational technologies didn't result in a radical increase in exploration and colonization of new lands.
Thanks for reminding me that introduction of the printing press didn't result in a radical increase of the availability of books.
I'm glad I remember now that introduction of the cotton gin didn't make production of cotton radically less expensive, and more popular.
Radio, telephone, assembly line, fiber optics, and, yes, the Internet...
(Note: ripping on Katz is not sophisticated, insightful, nor interesting. Your post could have been generated by a perl script grabbing random sentences from previous anti-Katz posts and stringing them together in random order. don't you have anything better to do?)
--
I'm looking at a greater trend here (Score:2)
No it is not. Fundamental change in this world is rare. Consider how many Katz-like "predictions" there are per actual change. It's 1 million to 1.
On a Katzian scale, it doesn't even register. After the television or radio was introduced, did politics make a sudden change? Did it shift suddenly towards or away from the people? Did corruption and backroom dealing suddenly leave or join politics? The answer is a resounding no. Politicians may have dressed a little different. Politians may have need to be a certain height, look a certain way, etc. They may have felt the need to do and say certain things, but it's still fundamentally the same world; what little significant change has happened over an extended period of tim (i.e., the trend towards soundbite media).
Katz doesn't give a carefull and balanced analysis of anything. It's either biased by very good or very bad. In short, it's alarmism. He's feeding the kiddies desire to scream and shout about something, nothing more.
Re:A Rule of Thumb For Katz (Score:2)
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:2)
That's an entirely different subject, but yes. I do think it was necessary, with some reservations.
I disagree with Katz on almost everything, especially this notion. The internet is not a savior. In fact, I believe it'll ultimately pale in comparison to the effect of the telephone on the world.
You got a few things wrong... (Score:1)
Even as far back as Columbus, we see an important message (his purpose was... as described in his log):
to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the heathens.
You may have succeeded in forcing the church out of much of politics, but you shall NEVER succeed in taking politics out of the Church!
Re:Is it just me or is Katz gitting better? (Score:1)
Not an inevitability (Score:3)
The problem I have with this Katz article, like the problem I have with many Katz articles, is the implication of inevitability. The Internet could have a democratizing influence, but is by no means assured.
For example, Katz talks about the "taverns", "town halls" and "churches" that exist on the Internet. But a serious concern is the extent to which these spaces are true public spaces, in the sense that they reflect the true diversity of public opinion. The Internet is at least partly attractive because it allows people to only encounter the information, people and ideas that they want to, to filter out what they might consider noise, to exclude those views that they find distasteful. But this is dangerous. In the real world, the messiness of randomness and shared physical spaces -- like the guy handing out pamphlets in the town square or your neighbors' diatribes at the school board meeting, or even the 30 minutes of Tom Brokaw on television -- keep us from truly blocking out information and viewpoints that we don't have a natural affinity for.
My question is, does the Internet truly promote public conversation, or does it promote private conversations among groups of like-minded people (e.g., slashdot users)? And if it is the latter, what are the implications of this for the strength of our national community? And, if we recognize that this would be, ultimately, bad for democracy, how can we encourage the development of true public spaces? Rolls http://www.quorum.org [quorum.org]
Re:A Rule of Thumb For Katz: take a wider view (Score:1)
Re:Forced Compliance (Score:1)
Campaign to get Gore to drop out and endorse Nader (Score:1)
It is not an original argument. But the problem with it is that they are asking the wrong candidate to quite the race. Had they thought it through, they would have demanded that Al Gore quit the race and throw his support behind Nader.
Think about it.
Vice President Al Gore has now had three 90 minute mano a mano debates with George W. Bush. His campaign and related soft money groups have spent hundreds of millions of dollars
on political ads to convince Americans to support him. He has received an overwhelming amount of press coverage, much of it sympathetic. He is a household name across the nation.
Yet here we are less than two weeks from election day and Al Gore still is not ahead of George W. Bush, arguably the least impressive and most unqualified candidate for president in U.S. history. Many polls find him trailing
Governor Bush. And there is little hope for a turnaround, as Bush has twice the money Gore does to bombard the nation with TV ads. Were a politician the caliber of Bill Clinton running against W., he would mop the floor with Bush's
carcass, and lead him by 15 points in the polls.
Al Gore has failed. For whatever reason, people just don't like the guy, and the more they see him, the less they like him. The voters have made it clear they might not elect him even over such a numbskull as George W. Bush.
It seems pretty clear why Gore cannot expose Bush for the fraud he is. Bush is owned lock, stock and barrel by the huge corporations and the wealthy. As president, Bush will reduce the tax burden on the wealthy and eliminate those remaining regulations that protect the environment, consumers and workers. He will also give the green light to anti-competitive corporate mergers and consolidation. A Bush Administration will make the Republican administrations of the Gilded Age and the Roaring 20s look like socialist states.
But Gore cannot attack Bush on these obvious points. Why? Because Gore is pretty much in hock to the same crowd, and the Clinton-Gore administration has been pursuing similar policies, albeit with a different grade of rhetoric to dress it up. So the debate is a lot of insincere focus group tested sound bites or a lot of mumbo jumbo on a bunch of incomprehensible policy programs. No one is advocating positions that tackle the extreme inequality of wealth and
power in the United States directly, and the total corruption of our governing system by big money.
Since there is little of substance to debate between them, those voters who haven't fallen asleep are making their choice between Gore and Bush on the basis of which they think has a better personality. On that score, whether it is
fair or not, Gore is a sure loser.
Ralph Nader is not the reason Gore's campaign is struggling. Gore has has ample opportunity to make his case before the American voters. Gore had a ten point lead in some polls in September. As that lead disappeared, most of the votes shifted to Bush, not Nader. In fact, surveys show that a significant percentage of Nader's supporters -- perhaps a majority -- either would not vote or would vote for someone other than Gore were Nader not in the race. Most of those
sympathetic to Nader but scared about a Bush presidency have already decided to vote for Gore.
Al Gore, and Al Gore alone, has blown his golden
opportunity.
In fact, that Gore has laid such an egg is damaging Nader's effort to reach the five percent threshold and earn matching funds for the Green party in 2004. If Gore were doing as
well as he should be doing, he would win the election handily and Nader could get 7-10 percent of the vote with little effect on the outcome. But Gore has indeed laid an egg, and party hacks are desperate to find a scapegoat.
If Democrats are truly concerned about the fate of progressive politics, the rational solution would be for Gore to quit and throw his support to Nader. Gore can't win. Nader can.
Without hardly any money and worse media coverage than Andrei Sakharov got from Pravda in the 1970s, Nader has drawn the six largest crowds in the campaign -- ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 people -- and these were paying audiences
no less. When people actually hear Nader's message they respond, and they respond favorably. Nader can galvanize the citizenry in a way Gore cannot. He is the smartest, most competent, and most honest figure in public life today. He
is a national treasure.
In leaving the race, Gore should demand that George W. Bush have three 90 minute debates mano a mano with Nader in the final 10 days of the campaign. Without Gore's dreadful semi-Republican record, Nader will easily expose Bush for
the ignoramus that he is. Let's see Bush serve up his banalities about favoring "small government" and "returning power to the people" in the face of Nader's command of the real record of massive corporate welfare that Bush supports.
Those genuinely concerned about the fate of progressive ideals should urge Vice President Gore to withdraw from the race immediately. Only Nader can defeat Bush. All that progressives stand for -- the Supreme Court, a woman's right
to choose, the environment -- is on the line. The sad truth is that on November 7 a vote for Gore is a vote for Bush.
-----------------------------------------------
If you are interested in urging Gore to drop out and endorse Nader, please send a message to him at townhall@algore2000.com. Here is a sample message:
Dear Sir / Ma'am,
As a concerned progressive, I'd like to as you to please encourage Mr. Al Gore to drop out of the presidential race. I fear that he may draw away soft support from Ralph Nader of the Green Party,
the only candidate consistently articulating pro-worker, pro-environmental, anti-militarist positions.
Thanks for your attention to this matter. We cannot afford to miss an opportuntity to create a real alternative to the failed Reagan-Bush-Clinton era policies.
democracy on the net (Score:1)
Still Waiting... (Score:1)
Bent rules, broken promises, much verbiage, little info. Thanks a lot, KatzBot.
The real Threed's
--Threed
Why the hell don't we vote online?????? (Score:1)
Re:One source you *can* believe all the time (Score:1)
I know I'm a little late in responding to this, but I always twinge when I read or hear someone saying that the Bible is the end-all-be-all of knowledge.
We already have the technology (Score:1)
3 or more parties are inherently unstable. (Score:1)
First off, let's remember that US citizens vote directly for President, and as we know, the President has the most power in government. He (or maybe one day she) sets the agenda for Congress, stops most contrarian action using the veto, and indirectly helps determine how the Constitution is interpreted by nominiating Supreme Court judges. So, essentially, the citizens vote directly - and all at once - for the government once every 4 years by voting for 1 person.
It doesn't make any sense to talk about any other form of government, unless you're talking about changing the Constitution. Good luck.
Given that reality, the outcomes are as follows:
1. The 2 party system is the most "fair." By fair, I mean that you maximize the "intent function." Did you intend this outcome? If 51% of the voters choose Gore, and 49% choose Bush, and Gore wins, then you've satisfied 51% of the voters intent. On the other hand, if 46% of the voters choose Gore, 49% Bush, and 5% Nader, then Bush wins and you've satisfied 49% - so the intent function is lower by 4%. There's a well-known way to solve this: ask voters for they're 2nd choice. (You get n-1 choices for n candidates.) This is great, except that it's not reality, so we can ignore it.
2. The 2 party system is the most stable. Voters are pretty smart, and they realize that point (1) is true. So they work hard to make sure that they're on the winning side of the mathematics I just ran though. Every time somebody gets screwed by being on the losing side, they "re-invent the party" around some issue or another. Sometimes it takes 2 or 3 elections, but in the end the party that was almost dead somehow is magically revived.
3. New parties can be created, but you have to be willing lose a *lot*, maybe for as long as a generation. All the while you're trying to create the new party, the other parties are trying hard to bleed of some of the electoral "steam." Campaign finance reform? Global warming? I don't see any issues important enough to enough people to suffer through 20 years of losing bigtime. We might see such a divisive and wrenching issue in our lifetimes, but frankly I hope we don't.
Now, there are other reasons to have 3 or 10 parties - and that's to get new voices and ideas heard. Often the primaries serve this function (McCain, Bradley). Also, at the local level, where there aren't so many voters to convince, and the local issues can be pretty divisive, new parties can make a lot of hay. Go for it. Just maybe you'll get lucky on the state level. (Or just maybe you'll get Jesse for governer.)
But in terms of setting the national agenda, when you get to choose between TweedleDum and TweedleDee, my advice is to suck it up, mutter something about the paucity of choices, and pick the lesser of two evils. Under the American system of government, that's your job. Get to it.
Re:You got a few things wrong... (Score:1)
Those "Christian Beliefs" being religious intolerance, slavery, and genocide. Time to put them away.
ROFL! "Church politics" is not usually seen as a Good Thing
--
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:1)
What is that supposed to mean? I said the events in South America are largely extraneous. In other words, it neither contributes nor takes away from the notion that the United States has an extremely stable goverment.
They are not extraneous. The stability of the US government DEPENDS on keeping foreign people's under its boot. If those countries were not exposed to the neo-liberal policies of the US which--like the British Empire in India--GUARANTEE a market for their company's goods, your "stability" goes bye-bye. The US did this with the Philippines, Hawaii, Guatemala, the list goes on and on. Here, inside the Plastic Bubble, things look and feel great (comparatively), and these aggressions are justified, in Orwellian fashion, as "defending democracy" and "enhancing stability". The question is: stability for whom? The obvious answer is: US, and us alone.
Like all imperialistic states, the US is a predator, and it chooses the weakest of enemies to pick on or exploit. THAT is what makes this country stable--the combination of US force of arms and the willingness to use them against defeated/weaker opponents (the Bomb in Japan and depleted uranium shells in Iraq), and the corresponding largesse its economic policies (armed extortion) lavishes on its own populace. If you believe otherwise, congratulations, you're the perfect US citizen.
This brings to my mind the best--and most chilling--line of "Three Days of the Condor" was when Cliff Robertson said, "Do you think they'll ask us THEN? No, they'll just want us to get it for them." That was as true in the 70s as it is today.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass or put you down or anything, but you really need to start thinking outside of the box the American Intelligensia has fostered on you.
Again, pardon the off-topic post.
Re:When was the show aired? (Score:1)
Start here [american-politics.com], or search deja for it.
Re:awarness isn't democracy (Score:1)
Indeed, television and newspapers are optimized to make the reader believe that he is well-informed. If they happen to include some information, then that's nice too. However, they like to encapsulate everything in a nice little package. Just look at how traditional media pigeonholes all politics as "left" and "right". If they weren't able to summarize everything then you wouldn't feel smart and empowered by their news source.
I disagree that "people can still read good newspapers and be just as informed."
There are vital differences between television/newspaper and the 'net. With TV/newspaper, you are limited to channel-surfing or browsing a few headlines to find interesting information. In contrast, hyperlinking scales up nicely to the huge size of the 'net. It's much easier to find unpopular information on the 'net than it is in traditional media, which has become homogenous because they must cater to the most popular demand.
Re:Why the hell don't we vote online?????? (Score:1)
Re:Goodness gracious (Score:1)
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:1)
No, the fact of the matter is that the USA was 'screwing over [africana.com]' Latin America [zompist.com] well [muohio.edu] before [mayaparadise.net] the Cold War gave us a more plausible [eatthestate.org] excuse [army.mil]. Check your facts next time you spout off about American superiority [oneworld.org].
PS. I'm an American too and I'm not exactly proud of all the things my country has done in the past (and continues to do to this day.) We are not neccesarily "the good guys." We are an empire like any other, which happens to carry the biggest stick at the moment.
Fun fact of the day: the term 'gook' did not come out of Korea or Vietnam -- American Marines were using it to refer to natives of Haiti as far back as 1915.
---
Re:You got a few things wrong... (Score:1)
Anyway, yes, however, to compare the religious fervor of Columbus's time to the more secular concerns of the 1700's, is practically like comparing apples and oranges. Columbus may have written that, however, he was also living in the time of the Spanish Inquisition. He wanted to find new lands for his Lord and Country, because thats the only thing the he could say and get the money and support he needed for his discoveries. Spain, post-Roman Empire, is DEFINATELY a country founded on the Christian fervor and not just the simple Christian faith.
Jumping forward to the times of the American Revolution, we can obviously see the slow deterioration of the Catholic fervor, being slowly replaced with a faith in a more benevolent God (however misguided) and his eventual forgivness, not damnation (a rather reasonable mass hallucination, given the slow rise in personal freedoms and liberties seen since the demise of the early Calvinist theocracies). At this point, a large majority of people have seen the corruption of the Church of the past several hundred years, as well as the problems of basing government on a theocracy, especially in the Northeast. Did people still go to church? Yes. Were there still occasional outcropings of Inquisition style fervor? Yes (remember the witch burnings had been just a little over a century ago, a time which it is quite evident NO ONE wanted to return too). And yes, the vast majority of people in the colonies practiced the Catholic faith.
However, could you not just chalk that up to the fact that the majority of the people that had come to the colonies happened to be of the Catholic faith? And that letting ones religious morals control ones life is not neccessarliy a bad thing, and that those morals will eventually shape a persons actions, even the actions of the forming of his/her own country? The seperation in church and state comes in the fact that you do not have to practice the catholic faith in order to be involved in American government or law (our democratic Vice-Presidential nominee shows this quite nicely at the time of this post).
Now, has there been a constant Christian majority in politics and society in the United States? Yes, that fact is undeniable. Blaming that fact on the state however is ludicrious. The simple fact is that the majority of people in the United States have always been Christian, and the people in the majority tend to do nasty things to stay in majority. It seems to me that the actions of what can be seen as the Christian Majority (protestant to be more specific) can be more attributed to the poor morals of the individual people, rather than the poor message of their faith. It is because of this majority, and their individual actions over the years, that we see America as a catholic club only.
Keep in mind i am not a Christian, but i am saying that it is not wrong to allow what one views as their deep religious beliefs to shape their actions. This only becomes a problem when the outcome of those actions is depolorable by almost any creed.
-syrupMatt
"Moving throught the masses like a fish through water."
Correct! (Score:2)
Then I heard him speak...
And I thought: "Here is an honest and intelligent man."
I keep wondering when such an individual will be president...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
katz's wordiness(again) (Score:1)
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:2)
What I do dispute vigorously is the assertion that the United States is internally stable because of some of our past "imperialistic" escapades. It's absolutely unsupported by the facts and there are many more probable reasons for our success. For instance, less than 20% of our exports go to the whole of South America, Latin America, and other nations on the western hemisphere, and an even smaller percentage of our imports comes from them. Do they have an effect on our economy? Sure. Is the success of our economy contingent on them? Definetely not, we'd still be considered very successfull even if you took that away. Furthermore, there are plenty of other non-economic reasons that account for our stability. i.e., the two party system, the balance of powers, a strong constitution, an abiding faith in our system, etc etc etc
Re:The net lets the disaffected connect (Score:2)
I don't agree with all US foreign policy. In fact, I happen to think much of it is il-concieved, unfair, and sometimes even immoral. However, it's just plain wrong to say that these, and other acts, in modern times, were all done out of imperial motives. There are plenty of other reasons.
Ah the common rejoinder of radical liberals. If you don't agree with my view, you must be a lamb or _insert other noun or adjective_.
Built with something in mind (Score:1)
* European cars are built with safety in mind.
* Asian cars are built with efficiency in mind.
* American cars are build with football in mind.
Cases in point: Only Honda and Toyota have petro-electric hybrids on the market at this time. Only Volvo and Mercedes offer solid roll-cages and side-airbags as standard equipment. Only the Ford Pinto explodes on impact.
This actually makes a lot of sense, if we think about it. The attitude behind the products of each of these cultures reflects the history and constraints of that culture.
Europeans have had war after war, century after century, roll back and forth across the continent. They (individual countries at least) insist that the lives of their citizens are important, and after years of industrial progress, safety is a requirement. After all, if all their citizens die in car crashes, there won't be anyone left to fight in the next ethnic war to come along.
Asians live in overcrowded conditions where optimal use of resuorces, especially for the Japanese, is of remarkable importance. People are plentiful, steel is expensive - so hoods and fenders are made thinner and lighter. It is not honorable to put ones self before the community, and so a car that flattens into a pancake is more respectable than one with pollutes the community air.
Americans like car races, big explosions and the individual pursuit of happiness. The faster happiness can be pursued, the better. If that means shoving someone else off the road with the running board of a big SUV, then so be it... If you can't keep up with the Joneses, or ride off into the sunset then you are weak and deserve to die in a fiery crash.
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196